Re: [PATCH] Do not ignore hidden refs

[Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>]

Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:

> I don't *need* but it might be nice to have also private heads, for
> possible setups when you declare heads namespace of two repositories
> matching 1:1 but would like to temporarily make a short-lived head in
> one of them or so.

I agree that different classes of heads and tags (not just
"public" vs "private") may come in handy in different workflows.

I think, however, if we (collectively as all the Porcelain
writers although I am not really one of them) are to support it,
they should not make distinction to the core, and it should be
handled with the agreed-upon convention.  In other words, if
".bar" were a valid refname to the core then I would agree that
not packing them had definitely been a bug.

And we already have one such convention of using refs/remotes
for tracking branches, which is promoted to become the default
(thus an official BCP).

Personally I established a convention to treat heads/??/* as
"private namespace" while using heads/* as public refs for my
own work (I do that for git.git as people know, and I do that
for my day job project as well).  I do not think it is a great
enough convention to be promoted as the official BCP, but it has
been good enough for me, especially commands like "show-branch"
and "tag -l" understands the shell-style filegrobs (e.g
"show-branch master heads/??/*" would show what's yet to be
polished and merged).